If you have been arrested for a DUI more than once then chances are you may have substance abuse issues. If so and you’re ready to address these issues than you should follow Aldon Smith’s example of the San Francisco 49ers. If you’re not a football fan or you don’t read the news. Then continue reading….

Aldon Smith is the Pro Bowl linebacker for the San Francisco 49ers. He was recently arrested for his second DUI. Rather than just show up to Court without doing anything, like so many people do. He decided to enter himself into a 28 day inpatient treatment facility before any legal actions began. Also he will do this stint in the middle of the football season. I think his actions are great for several reasons.

First if he truly feels like he has substance abuse or dependence issues than it is probably best for him to get the help he needs. There are many ways to try and address alcoholism and inpatient treatment is a great way to go. Assuming you’re ready for that kind of lifestyle change.

Secondly by entering this program before he gets charged with a DUI he is completely taking responsibility for his actions. Before he even appears in front of a Judge or Prosecutor he is showing them he is taking this seriously and he is trying to be accountable for his actions. Believe it or not this will go a long way towards him getting the best possible outcome for him in the criminal case.

As a DUI Lawyer in Seattle, I have had several clients take this approach on a second or third DUI. And when it came time to start the criminal case they were in a much better position had they just sat around and done nothing.

Heck I even had a client charged with a first offense DUI take this approach. The DUI itself had pretty bad facts and because of that the Prosecutor was not going to be offering any kind of plea deal reduction. But my client decided to take a leave of absence from her job and enter a 28 day inpatient treatment program.

When my client got out the Prosecutor was so pleased and surprised she had taken that level of accountability, I was able to get the DUI charge significantly reduced. A deal otherwise we never would have even be able to get.

The other reason entering this kind of program might be a good idea on a second offense DUI has to do with the release conditions imposed at a DUI arraignment. Let’s say you have Court here in Seattle. On a second offense DUI I can tell you from experience the Prosecutors in Seattle are going to ask the Judge to impose at least $10,000 in bail, plus a SCRAM and Ignition Interlock requirement while the case is pending. And most Judge’s will do it without blinking an eye.

However if the defendant shows up to the arraignment having just got out of treatment then typically the Judge is so impressed there is an outside chance none of those conditions come into play. Or at the very least just the ignition interlock device which is far less expensive and intrusive than the SCRAM bracelet.

So the bottom line is if you’re facing a second DUI arrest here in Seattle. You should follow the example of Aldon Smith and consider entering an inpatient treatment program. Especially if you’re considering going the deferred prosecution route or you want to avoid having significant conditions of release imposed while the DUI is pending.

Part of my practice as a Seattle DUI Lawyer is to stay up to date on recent case law opinions decided by different Courts in our State. Last month the Washington State Supreme Court held cities, counties, and utility companies can be held liable when a faulty road design leads to injuries from car crashes – even injuries caused by a drunk driver. Yes you heard that right.

To put this simply if a drunk driver gets into an accident and injuries themselves or another, they can sue the city, county, or a utility company if they can prove a faulty road design was the proximate cause of the injury.

In the case that the Washington Supreme Court heard, the Court in a 8-1 ruling overturned a lower courts dismissal of the case. What had happened was two people who had been drinking were injured when their car ran off the road and struck a utility pole that was reportedly closer to the roadway than guidelines dictated.

The passenger, whose arm was disfigured, sued Skagit County and Puget Sound Energy. A lower court judge tossed the case, but the Supreme Court reinstated it, saying government entities owe a duty to ensure roads are reasonably safe for public travel, no matter whether the driver is at fault.

Personally I think this opinion will cause several issues in the future should another sue a City, or County for some roadway issue. Who will pay the judgements? If a City or County gets sued guess who is on the hook. The residents of that City or County. So if another driver involved in criminal activity is injured and the injury was caused by an issue that falls under this opinion, then the tax payers are on the hook.

This seems really unfair to me. Especially in this day and age of people suing. The United States has the reputation as a litigious society where people are only trying to take advantage of the legal system to get paid. Well this particular lawsuit seems to hit the nail right on the head. Suing Puget Sound Energy when a drunk driver hits their telephone pole. Huh, what will happen next?

Leyba Defense PLLC is a Criminal Defense Law Firm located in Bellevue and Seattle. Our practice represents those accused of DUI and other traffic related offenses.

Last week Seattle Police Officer Marie Gochnour pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of Reckless Driving from the original offense of DUI. The sentence imposed was 2 days in jail along with the other standard DUI conditions. All this after Officer Gouchnour registered an impressive .25 breath test, which in case you don’t know is more than 3 times the legal limit. So how did this happen especially in this day and age when Washington State is getting tough on DUIs.

Well in case you’re not familiar with the facts of this case is was pretty interesting. It involved 2 Seattle Police Officers, a 911 call, a collision, and one driver switching seats with another and then driving off. Seems like a pretty straight forward DUI case, huh? Aside from the SPD officers. A breath test 3 times over the legal limit, a car accident, an eye witness who can identify the vehicle and the driver, along with the usual signs of impairment (odor, slurred speech, watery blood shot eyes, poor coordination, etc).

So what happened? From what I gather it appears the City of Seattle was unable to locate the 911 caller. I went back through the police report and sure enough the 911 caller refused to provide detailed contact information. Why does this matter you ask? Because a civilian witness called 911 to report this accident there wer no other witnesses to the accident, no other witnesses to who the driver was, and no other witnesses about the old switcharoo between the driver and passenger.

Without this witness there was no basis for the police to contact the driver. Without his testimony then there becomes significant problems with the initial contact by the responding officers. So despite all the seemingly insurmountable evidence against Officer Gochnour she really lucked out. The other Officer involved in the accident will probably get offered a plea deal too. Although his BAC level was not nearly as high as Officer Gochnour’s, it was still twice over the legal limit.

Some may say this is really unfair. Here is this woman who blew over 3 times the legal limit. She tried to fool the police by switching seats with the passenger. She was a complete B?tch to the arresting Officers, and seemingly went out of her way to avoid taking any kind of responsibility by denying she was the driver. She then gets the benefit of a reduced charge when someone who barely blew over the legal limit, who was cordial and polite with the arresting Officer, and was honest about their actions don’t get offered such a deal. As a DUI Lawyer this is sometimes hard to explain to clients and even harder to accept when you’re on the other end of the “no deal” negotiation.

Recently a blood test refusal was suppressed in a local district court. Although I was not the DUI Lawyer that litigated the issue, I know the Attorney that did and kudos to her. So that raises the question are blood test refusals admissible? At least according to one Judge in King County, the answer is no? Let’s take a closer look why?

Essentially two cases have changed the legal landscape when it comes to DUI blood testing evidence. The first case I have blogged about extensively. Missouri v. McNeely. In that case, the United States Supreme Court held that the natural metabolization of alcohol in the human body does not present an exigency issue that justifies an exception to the 4th amendment warrant requirement. In other words, a blood test is now considered a search, and a warrant is required.

The other case that has changed the legal landscape is a local case. State v. Gauthier. The Court of Appeals Division I held that a defendant’s refusal to consent to DNA testing cannot be used as evidence of guilt by the Prosecution. In other words, the Prosecutors can’t argue the reason the defendant refused a blood test is because he knew he was guilty.

Now clearly the McNeely case is applicable to DUIs. The question is whether the Gauthier case is? When you combine the two together it is very clear in my opinion it is applicable to DUI cases. Under a 4th amendment analysis when it comes to blood testing of any kind. Whether it is for DNA, or to test for alcohol and/or drugs in a DUI case it is considered a search. And therefore under Gauthier when a defendant is exercising their 4th amendment rights or their 5th amendment right to remain silent is not evidence of guilt.

Now the question becomes is Gauthier applicable to DUI breath test refusals? This is a question for another day and one I’m certain every DUI Attorney in Seattle will be litigating now that the door has been opened for challenging refusal evidence by this Judge in King County.

Again kudos to the DUI Lawyer that raised this issue. Excellent outcome.

As I blogged about several weeks ago. A new set of DUI laws in Washington State was recently passed by the State Legislature. Originally the new laws would have made Washington State the toughest state in the nation when it came to DUI penalties. But due to budget restraints and the current economy what was passed a few weeks is but a shell of what was originally proposed.

However one of the original ideas made it all the way through the signing and passage into law by Governor Inslee. And that is the 24/7 alcohol monitoring program. From what I hear this may be an excellent option for those who are repeat DUI offenders. Essentially it offers the chance to avoid jail if an individual agrees to be monitored and remain completely abstinent for a long period of time.

Due to the nature of this pilot program a lot of the details are not yet fully worked out. From what I hear this program will be implemented in three counties and two cities. The plan is for these jurisdictions to measure their success rates, costs, and issues with the program and then report back.

Participants in the program will be required to wear a bracelet that detects alcohol consumption. Probably very similar to a SCRAM bracelet or some other device that detects alcohol through your sweat glands. Additionally there may be a breathalyzer installed at your home connected to a phone line. There will be very strict probation monitoring guidelines and a complete abstinence from alcohol and other mood altering drugs.

What is not clear is how much discretion will the programs have in deciding whether someone has violated the terms of the agreement. In other words if someone tests positive for alcohol are they going to jail immediately for the duration of their mandatory sentence or will there be a second or third chance. My bet is it will be very strict and if a participant consumes a drop of alcohol they will be immediately booted from the program and will go straight to jail.

Like a deferred prosecution entering into this type of program should not be taken lightly. Yes avoiding jail sounds like a wonderful idea. But this type of program is a complete lifestyle change. In addition to the alcohol monitoring there will be treatment you have to complete as well. But it does give an individual an option to help themselves and change their life rather than going to jail where no good will come of it.

_
About the author: Matthew Leyba is a DUI Lawyer in Seattle, WA. He is a rising star in the field of DUI Defense, and is a Top rated DUI Attorney by Avvo. His practice focuses on representing those accused of DUI and other traffic offenses.

A few blog posts ago I wrote about the recent changes to DUI laws that were recently approved by the Washington State legislature. I would like to discuss each change, but writing about each one in a single post might be difficult since there were so many and they are all very detailed. So from this point forward I’m going to blog about each major change individually. First up the change to the employer owned vehicle exception for ignition interlock devices.

Currently RCW 46.20.385(1)(c)(i) states

The department shall require the person to maintain the device on all vehicles operated by the person and shall restrict the person to operating only vehicles equipped with the device, for the remainder of the period of suspension, revocation, or denial. The installation of an ignition interlock device is not necessary on vehicles owned, leased, or rented by a person’s employer and on those vehicles whose care and/or maintenance is the temporary responsibility of the employer, and driven at the direction of a person’s employer as a requirement of employment during working hours. The person must provide the department with a declaration pursuant to RCW 9A.72.085 from his or her employer stating that the person’s employment requires the person to operate a vehicle owned by the employer or other persons during working hours. However, when the employer’s vehicle is assigned exclusively to the restricted driver and used solely for commuting to and from employment, the employer exemption does not apply.

In other words if you are required to have a functioning ignition interlock device in any vehicle your drive as a result of a DUI and you have to drive a vehicle for work. If that vehicle is owned, leased, or rented by the employer then you may be eligible to get the ignition interlock requirement waived on that employer vehicle. Seems like a pretty good deal, huh? Especially if you have to drive for work related purposes and you would otherwise lose your job if you cannot do that. When this legislation passed a few years ago I thought it was a brilliant idea and really forward thinking by the State Legislature.

However things have changed since SB 5912. The legislation that was recently passed will impact the employer owned vehicle IID exception in the following way:

The bill adds a “waiting period” before an individual is eligible for this exception. If it is a first DUI then that waiting period is the first 30 days of the requirement. If it is a second DUI then the waiting period is the first 1 year of the requirement.

So if it is a first offense 30 days may not result in a loss of the job. I guess conceivably a person could take a vacation or if their employer is understanding might be willing to work around the requirement until the exception kicks in. However if it is a second offense or greater than you can pretty much kiss any job goodbye, unless you have an awesome employer.

The reason behind the change has to do with federal regulations and making sure Washington stays in compliance with those to access federal highway funding. Opponents of the changes expressed concerns over the changes and how it will negatively impact drivers in Washington State, but millions of dollars from the federal government will always win those arguments.

_
About the author: Matthew Leyba is rated as one of the best DUI Attorneys in Seattle by Avvo, and has been named a Rising Star in the field of DUI Defense by several publications including the Seattle Met Magazine, and Super Lawyers Magazine. This is an honor less than 2.5% of all Attorneys in Washington State receive.